The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the following: although the defendant was deemed to have drunk at the time of the crime of this case, the victim was not able to snife the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant's behavior was not identical to the person under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and other circumstances before and after the crime of this case, it does not appear that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. There are also circumstances to consider the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the instant crime by age, and the Defendant appears to have reached the instant crime by contingency under drinking.

However, the crime of this case is a case of assaulting a victim who operated a taxi and causing injury, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the victim, and even though the injury suffered by the victim is not less than that of the frame, it does not reach an agreement with the victim up to the trial. The defendant committed the crime of this case despite the suspended execution period due to the same crime, and all of the sentencing conditions, such as the motive and circumstance of the crime, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are taken into account, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below, which has set the minimum punishment within the scope of discretionary mitigation, is too unreasonable.